This blog is an exploration of principled problem solving which is an initiative at Guilford College encouraging a focus of people's abilities and experiences toward solving real-world problems under the guidance of the college’s core values of community, diversity, equality, excellence, integrity, justice and stewardship.

12/10/2010

Hope for Change: Understanding the Social System

This past Fall Semester 2010, Courtney Mandeville and I worked together in order to reduce meat consumption in the Guilford College cafeteria. Our over consumption of meat has terrible effects not only on our health, but on the environment, as well. Our personal goal was to understand how to enact change within institutions; in other words, how do we work with an established system to bring about change?

Institutions are overwhelming and impersonal, they are the proverbial 'Man' - the easy target of complaint. 'They' are the problem. 'They' do not care. Yet, what exactly is an institution? An institution makes decisions. An institution spends money. An institution functions as the director of a community. Institutions directly affect our lives, but how? Who are 'they'?

Courtney and I chose a project which was rumored to have a rather tumultuous history on our campus. We heard (听说) the national Meatless Monday campaign met with some 'institutional' resistance in the past. Choosing a controversial and value driven issue would surely help us to better understand the system, especially one which would expose the true evil of 'the establishment.' If the project failed, we would walk away with a better understanding of the relationship between established systems and change. Besides, controversy is always interesting. I wanted to "take on the Man."

Our method was simple: contact those members of the institution who were included in the rumor and collect information. Alas, the rumors were not true. Not a single administrative member could find any record of a Meatless Monday proposal. Worse yet, 'they' were agreeable! This non-circuitous (direct) route of engagement drastically altered the foundations of our project within 24-hours.

Rather than resisting our project, the institution - the problem - encouraged us to take on the issue. Our project quickly became one of action. Throughout the process we learned a number of things about evil and impenetrable systems, those same systems of oppression put in place to stop change:

1.) Systems are composed of individual humans capable of feeling and relation.

In the face of such an overwhelming institution, one with which we have no relationship, 'how do we tackle an issue? Where do we begin?' Often, a lack of relationship between an institution and a community equates to people feeling disenfranchised and helpless. Institutions quickly become painted as oppositional to communal or social good.

Yet, can we realistically expect an institution, burdened with the responsibility of maintaining the well-being of a community, to foster a relationship with every individual? Who is responsible for that personal relationship? We are.

2.) Along these lines, these same humans do really exist and are approachable!

The question is who you contact: Who is relevant to your project? Some anxiety was expressed over our choice in contacts by one of the faculty members in charge of the program; yet, why? People often equate professional hierarchies with levels of inaccessibility, e.g. a simple peasant (college student) should never contact a king (president) about his or her problems with the system.

These perceptions are just plain silly (Ho Chi Minh attempted several times to contact the president of the United States, and eventually succeeded). Most importantly, due to these perceptions, institutional leaders often have no contact with their larger community! These perceptions of inaccessibility only exacerbate the issue even further.

If a leader within the institution either does not have time for your project, or feels that your question might be best directed somewhere else, typically he or she will tell you. The worst anyone can say is 'no.'

[Note: We, as commoners, must model professionalism; as a result, we should expect nothing less in return. Students, always respond to your professors' e-mails with good grammar. And, just because a professor does not respond does not mean you should emulate their conduct. Systemic change should be modeled from the ground up.]

3.) The system painted as evil is often not.

We contacted the right people (much to the initial chagrin of some). We modeled professionalism. We used good grammar in our letters and proposals. As agitators we were approachable. Ask yourself how you can be approachable and why someone should listen to you over someone else. If the 'system,' or another human, sees you as unpleasant, then why should they speak to you?

If you are not evil, chances are community systems will not be either.

4.) There is hope for change.

Due to a radical shift in ideology late in the game, Courtney and I pulled our proposal for reassessment; although passed by Community Senate, we chose to wait until we knew more specifically what we wanted from the institution.

The institution (made of people) was approachable. They wanted to work with us. We met no real resistance. Change can happen.

The above 'blog' article hopes to do two things: [1] let you know that you can enact change in systems that appear impenetrable; and [2] give you a starting place for doing so. If you have a problem, you can fix it. The system may not perpetuate the problem; rather, it may be our own lethargy.

As a community member, you have two options:

1.) Continue the rumor (which may not be true) and never fix the issue. In fact, rumors may cause more harm than good.

2.) Solve the issue. If you can't solve the issue, then at least you will have come away with an understanding of the system in which you find yourself.

Comments

Hope for Change: Understanding the Social System

This past Fall Semester 2010, Courtney Mandeville and I worked together in order to reduce meat consumption in the Guilford College cafeteria. Our over consumption of meat has terrible effects not only on our health, but on the environment, as well. Our personal goal was to understand how to enact change within institutions; in other words, how do we work with an established system to bring about change?

Institutions are overwhelming and impersonal, they are the proverbial 'Man' - the easy target of complaint. 'They' are the problem. 'They' do not care. Yet, what exactly is an institution? An institution makes decisions. An institution spends money. An institution functions as the director of a community. Institutions directly affect our lives, but how? Who are 'they'?

Courtney and I chose a project which was rumored to have a rather tumultuous history on our campus. We heard (听说) the national Meatless Monday campaign met with some 'institutional' resistance in the past. Choosing a controversial and value driven issue would surely help us to better understand the system, especially one which would expose the true evil of 'the establishment.' If the project failed, we would walk away with a better understanding of the relationship between established systems and change. Besides, controversy is always interesting. I wanted to "take on the Man."

Our method was simple: contact those members of the institution who were included in the rumor and collect information. Alas, the rumors were not true. Not a single administrative member could find any record of a Meatless Monday proposal. Worse yet, 'they' were agreeable! This non-circuitous (direct) route of engagement drastically altered the foundations of our project within 24-hours.

Rather than resisting our project, the institution - the problem - encouraged us to take on the issue. Our project quickly became one of action. Throughout the process we learned a number of things about evil and impenetrable systems, those same systems of oppression put in place to stop change:

1.) Systems are composed of individual humans capable of feeling and relation.

In the face of such an overwhelming institution, one with which we have no relationship, 'how do we tackle an issue? Where do we begin?' Often, a lack of relationship between an institution and a community equates to people feeling disenfranchised and helpless. Institutions quickly become painted as oppositional to communal or social good.

Yet, can we realistically expect an institution, burdened with the responsibility of maintaining the well-being of a community, to foster a relationship with every individual? Who is responsible for that personal relationship? We are.

2.) Along these lines, these same humans do really exist and are approachable!

The question is who you contact: Who is relevant to your project? Some anxiety was expressed over our choice in contacts by one of the faculty members in charge of the program; yet, why? People often equate professional hierarchies with levels of inaccessibility, e.g. a simple peasant (college student) should never contact a king (president) about his or her problems with the system.

These perceptions are just plain silly (Ho Chi Minh attempted several times to contact the president of the United States, and eventually succeeded). Most importantly, due to these perceptions, institutional leaders often have no contact with their larger community! These perceptions of inaccessibility only exacerbate the issue even further.

If a leader within the institution either does not have time for your project, or feels that your question might be best directed somewhere else, typically he or she will tell you. The worst anyone can say is 'no.'

[Note: We, as commoners, must model professionalism; as a result, we should expect nothing less in return. Students, always respond to your professors' e-mails with good grammar. And, just because a professor does not respond does not mean you should emulate their conduct. Systemic change should be modeled from the ground up.]

3.) The system painted as evil is often not.

We contacted the right people (much to the initial chagrin of some). We modeled professionalism. We used good grammar in our letters and proposals. As agitators we were approachable. Ask yourself how you can be approachable and why someone should listen to you over someone else. If the 'system,' or another human, sees you as unpleasant, then why should they speak to you?

If you are not evil, chances are community systems will not be either.

4.) There is hope for change.

Due to a radical shift in ideology late in the game, Courtney and I pulled our proposal for reassessment; although passed by Community Senate, we chose to wait until we knew more specifically what we wanted from the institution.

The institution (made of people) was approachable. They wanted to work with us. We met no real resistance. Change can happen.

The above 'blog' article hopes to do two things: [1] let you know that you can enact change in systems that appear impenetrable; and [2] give you a starting place for doing so. If you have a problem, you can fix it. The system may not perpetuate the problem; rather, it may be our own lethargy.

As a community member, you have two options:

1.) Continue the rumor (which may not be true) and never fix the issue. In fact, rumors may cause more harm than good.

2.) Solve the issue. If you can't solve the issue, then at least you will have come away with an understanding of the system in which you find yourself.